A historical and theological review of early heresies that seeks to hear the heretics out without abandoning orthodoxy, written for a wide audience. I have some disagreements, but generally some good takeaways too.
•••
In each chapter, Wilhite presents the stereotype of a heresy, then works through the historical details (admitting when primary sources are too sparse to be certain), and finally presents a summary "gospel according to" that seeks to find the nugget of hope/truth in the heresy. That said, he readily admits that they fall short as valid alternatives to orthodoxy as we know it — a welcome commitment amidst other "recovery" efforts from liberal scholars.
I found his historical work approachable and mostly balanced, and it should provide students with helpful areas for further research. Theologically, while committed to orthodoxy, he did beat around the bush and leeave things unresolved at times, and this would likely make the book too mixed for lay readers. Some have critiqued his casual writing style, and while it may detract from the professional academic appeal, there was only once or twice his humor really took me out of it.
The best part of the book, to me, was his conclusion. While I didn't agree with all of his reasoning, I think his final definitions of heresy and orthodoxy are helpful, and his practical application matched my heart in this issue. Ultimately, individuals with concerning theology need to be approached personally in loving rebuke with intent to draw them back to truth, rather than be pushed away categorically in condemnation.
HOWEVER, this book would have gotten four stars from me if not for chapter 9 on iconoclasm. Wilhite, despite being Baptist, implicitly sided with Nicaea II. He wrote that iconoclasm is only needed when images lead to idolatry, but otherwise iconoclasm is heresy. On the other hand, he gave iconophiles the title of "orthodox" without even discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of veneration, or the fact that Nicaea II anathematized those who do not venerate images — he did not even distinguish between images used for veneration versus spiritual art used for cultural or teaching purposes. While I understand some of this was outside of his scope, it is an incomplete and unbalanced treatment of a controversy still going on today. And while some perspective on Islam in chapter 10 was interesting, ultimately the book would have been better with only 8 chapters.
•••
In sum, the book is a decent introduction to early christological heresies and heresiology, contributing some good ideas and direction for further research. However, his occasional inconsistency and unclarity, as well as his chapter on icons, really hold this book back in my opinion. I would still recommend it for students of theology and church history, but not lay readers.